MHS
Hospitality Group, LLC, and Mukhi Hospitality Group, LLC
("Hospitality Groups" collectively) appeal the
circuit court's denials of their Rule 74.05 and Rule
74.06 motions to set aside the court's Order and Judgment
which ordered judgment by default in favor of Earl Hooks and
against Hospitality Groups on Hooks' Petition for
Damages. The Petition alleged that Hooks was severely injured
after falling into a hole while an invitee on Hospitality
Groups' premises. Hospitality Groups assert three points
on appeal. First, they contend that the circuit court erred
in summarily denying their Rule 74.06 motion for relief from
judgment, because the circuit court's final judgment on
the merits, entered as a sanction of default judgment
pursuant to Rule 61.01, creates a reversible void judgment
when no answer had yet been filed to assert their legal
defenses in that it denies them the opportunity to raise
their defenses to the allegations in violation of their due
process rights. Second, Hospitality Groups contend that the
circuit court abused its discretion in summarily denying
their Rule 74.06 motion for relief from judgment, entering a
final judgment on the merits, and entering a sanction of
default judgment pursuant to Rule 61.01, when no answer had
yet been filed, arguing that this rendered the judgment a
reversible irregular judgment because it is materially
contrary to the established civil procedure of filing an
answer prior to entering a sanction of striking the pleadings
in a case and entering a judgment on the merits. Finally,
Hospitality Groups contend that the circuit court abused its
discretion in denying their Rule 74.05 motion to set aside
default judgment by ruling that Hospitality Groups did not
file a motion for relief under Rule 74.06, thereby ignoring
Hospitality Groups' demonstration of meritorious defenses
and good cause as to the default, in that their now disbarred
counsel failed to file an answer and, therefore, their
default was not intentionally or recklessly designed to
impede the judicial process. We affirm.

On
February 4, 2015, Hooks filed a Petition for Damages against
MHS Hospitality Group, LLC, alleging that Hooks was severely
injured after falling into a hole while an invitee at the
Capital Center Inn which is owned by Hospitality Groups. An
amended petition joining Mukhi Hospitality Group, LLC, was
filed on March 20, 2015. MHS Hospitality Group, LLC, was
served notice of the action on February 12, 2015, and Mukhi
Hospitality Group, LLC, was served notice on April 3, 2015.
Initial interrogatories were served on each defendant at the
same time the petitions and summonses were served. Hooks'
First Request for Admissions was served on Hospitality Groups
in May of 2015.

In July
of 2015, Hospitality Groups retained counsel to defend the
suit. Hospitality Groups' appellate brief states that
communication was maintained with defense counsel thereafter,
both by email and telephone, regarding the status of the
lawsuit. Hospitality Groups avers that, while defense counsel
did not formally file an entry of appearance in the matter
until February 17, 2016, defense counsel personally appeared
before the trial court on behalf of Hospitality Groups
throughout the proceedings, including at a case management
conference on September 8, 2015. At that conference, the
matter was scheduled for jury trial on September 26, 2016.

Hooks'
First Request for Production of Documents and Things was
served on Hospitality Groups on October 20, 2015. At that
time, Hospitality Groups had responded to none of the
previously requested discovery. Hooks' Motion to Enforce
Discovery and Suggestions in Support was served that same
date. On November 4, 2015, the court entered an order
directing Hospitality Groups to answer the opening
interrogatories within five days. Hospitality Groups failed
to do so.

Hooks'
Second Motion to Enforce Discovery and Suggestions in Support
was served on Hospitality Groups on November 9, 2015. On
November 23, 2015, the court entered an order directing
Hospitality Groups to respond without objection to the
requests for production within five days. Hospitality Groups
failed to do so.

Hooks'
Motion for Sanctions was served on Hospitality Groups and
their defense attorney on December 4, 2015, with copies of
the November 3 and November 23 orders attached. The trial
court entered an order on December 16, 2015, finding that,
Hospitality Groups had violated the November 3 and November
23 orders of the court, Defendant Mukhi had failed to appear
at a properly noticed Rule 57.03 deposition thereby
prejudicing Hooks, and that the repeated non-compliance with
the court's directives amounted to contempt of court
warranting sanctions. The court imposed the following Rule
61.01 sanctions:

(1) Defendants, as the disobedient parties, will not be
allowed to support liability defenses or oppose liability
claims and will be prohibited from introducing liability
matters in evidence;

(2) Defendants' failures to obey are treated as a
contempt of court;

(3) Both Defendants and the attorney advising Defendants
shall pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney's
fees, caused by the failures.

The
court entered an order on January 12, 2016, awarding $8, 160
in attorney fees and $206.46 in expenses against Hospitality
Groups and their attorney, jointly and severally. The order
was served on defense counsel.

Hooks
served a Notice of Hearing on Hospitality Groups and defense
counsel on January 21, 2016, for a status hearing on February
17, 2016. Defense counsel, Jimmy E. Allen, Jr., officially
entered his appearance at the ...

Our website includes the first part of the main text of the court's opinion.
To read the entire case, you must purchase the decision for download. With purchase,
you also receive any available docket numbers, case citations or footnotes, dissents
and concurrences that accompany the decision.
Docket numbers and/or citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a
legal proceeding. Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision. If the document contains a simple affirmation or denial without discussion,
there may not be additional text.

Buy This Entire Record For
$7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.